>
> My statement is the these protocells are what Fox thinks how life came
into
> being from the material.
>
He has alot of evidence to support that belief. What evidence do you have
that he is wrong?
>
> However, the protocells themselves are not alive.
>
So you keep saying, but you have not offerred one piece of evidence or one
decent biological argument to support YOUR belief. All you have offerred is
word games and metaphysical arguments about death.
>
> That is a theory since he cannot produce living things from these
protocells
> that he "assembled" in the lab.
>
And when I demonstrate that by your own argument Fox's protocells must be
alive because they can die, now you move the goalposts. Protocells are
themselves alive, and since they can reproduce they can produce more living
things from themselves. They can even evolve by conjugating and sharing
information packets between each other, or by merging to form larger combined
protocells that are more versitile.
Face it Moorad. Fox's protocells are alive and you cannot prove otherwise.
The only difference between you and Art is that he realizes when he's been
licked and bails out, whereas you just continue to repeat the same
fallacious, refuted arguments over and over again. Why don't you discuss the
real evidence instead of playing these games? Or is that a fool question?
Kevin L. O'Brien